University - THE RECORD

International Student Describes Her First Month at Antioch

Antioch vs. The Rest of the World, Part I: Germany

“Write something about the differences between your home university and Antioch…�? Mmmmh, where am I supposed to start?! Explaining the difference between the German and the American educational system would take me for ever, but to compare Antioch to Tübingen…Let’s begin with the very basics: We don’t pay for university (well, they are going to make us pay 500 euros a term from summer 2007 on, but that’s pretty much nothing compared to tuition in the US). We don’t have to take a certain amount of credits per term (you could do nothing at all or maybe one class, or if you’re absolutely insane, don’t like to sleep and would rather live on coffee 24/7 you could take 30 hours of classes per week; they just expect you to have certain credits after your second year). We divide our academic year into 2 semesters, each followed by a break (2 months after the winter semester and 3 months in summer; technically they are “lecture free times�? and you’re supposed to write term papers, do internships or research projects etc but it’s more like almost half a year of vacation…). We don’t need p.e. credits (if you don’t want to get some exercise after graduating from high school, no one is able to force you to move your body). We have more than one photocopier in our library (copy machines are a student’s best friend… we usually don’t buy expensive textbooks, we just xerox them). Maybe I should stop making you jealous… It seems like we have more freedom, but hey, we don’t get free prints and it usually takes us more than 5 minutes to get to our classrooms… ; )

Katharina Buchter

Students Grumble as Problems Plague IT Department

By Paige Clifton-Steele

The staff knows it and the students notice it: the Information Technology department at Antioch College is understaffed and under-funded. “We’ve had consistency issues. We’ve had authentication issues. And it was generally inconvenient in the beginning,�? says Shea Witzberger, first year. She isn’t alone in her complaints—many Antioch users of WiFi continue to experience similar problems.

According to a June 2002 study released by the Gartner Group, a respected computer-consulting firm, one IT support person is required for every seventy Macintosh computers, or for every forty-five PCs. The Antioch Information Technology department has six people, in addition to one co-op student and the manager of the website, who lives and works out of state. When measured against the approximately 1,200 users who make up Antioch College and Antioch University McGregor, it becomes clear how disproportionate these numbers are. That’s one staff member for every two hundred users.

The implications of this are many. First year students have complained about the wireless in North Hall—mostly about problems that have since been resolved. However, students continue to lament short-term problems with wireless. “I’m glad that they’ve been so helpful with my concerns online, though.�?

Several students report being better able to access support online, while their in-person requests receive less priority. Paul Deardorff, Systems Administrator, acknowledges that questions put to him in his office or the hall may fall by the wayside. “People will come up and say I’m having a problem with this, I’m having a problem with that…And to be honest with you, it’s hard to keep up. It’s much easier for us if someone were to log into the helpdesk and put a helpdesk ticket up.�?

Sometimes, students and staff vary on what constitutes a problem; several students are concerned about privacy policies on First Class, while IT staff would like to handle the issue informally.

“I am concerned about privacy in my First Class Account,�? says Sean Bradley, straight white male first year. “And most people’s initial passwords were logarithms of their names and some fairly consistent number…�?

However, Brown differs, “I don’t know of any policy, but to be honest I don’t see the need for one because every person in the IT department very firmly believes that we don’t mess with your mail unless somebody real, real high up above asks us to.�? At MacGregor, policy states that that person is the president of the school. It remains ambiguous who would have the authority to ask that of the department at the college level.

Cassie Collins, a fourth year co-oping in the department, says, “What I have seen would lead me to believe that there is not [a privacy policy regarding First Class moderation].�? Asked whether she believes there is a call for one, she says yes, qualifying, “But not because anything that IT has done.�?

Another problem hampering the efficiency of the department is its tendency to be pulled into audiovisual maintenance jobs that are not strictly computer related. Collins believes she has a solution: “I think just having one person to handle AV would be useful. Take a coop student, teach them all about the AV, and just have them run AV support.�?

Units, in addition to North Hall, has wireless internet, while Birch and Spalt remain connected with Ethernet. Spalt residents complain of few problems with their internet, but North has suffered a series of setbacks since students arrived in September.

The IT department made changes to the North wireless network just prior to the beginning of the academic school year because of a PHD program residency, but the changes caused problems that went undetected for a few weeks. “There was a difference in firmware between the AP2000 and the AP4000,�? says Tom Brown. “We couldn’t figure it out for a while because we couldn’t see a trend. We had to make the wireless open, available to everyone.�?

During this time, students in North could access the wireless network without a certificate. A few weeks later, it was resecured.

Understaffing isn’t the only problem that plagues the department. On the second floor of the library is a pile of broken computers awaiting disposal. “The village won’t take them because they’re not environmentally safe to dispose of,�? says Brown. Though a few of them were removed when Dylan Reiff took them for use in his show. ‘Robocalypse’ last term, Brown still stays, “I think we need to work with physical plan to make that happen. They’re piling up every time one dies.�?

Asked what makes the IT department at Antioch unique than that of other schools, Deardorff says with pride that the members of the IT department have a variety of degrees and areas of expertise different from the usual computer-related studies. These range from philosophy to English.

Lunch With President Leaves Bad Taste in Student’s Mouth

By The Cooperative Council for a Non Wack Social Scene

This past Monday I had the pleasure filled opportunity of participating in a lunch date with our distinguished president Steve “the bulldog�? Lawry. This opportunity was one I did not take for granted, as up until yesterday Steve was the sort of legendary character I only found myself within spitting distance of in my dreams. I do not think it would be a stretch to describe him as elusive. I mean I never see him at community meetings, or meals, he never knocks on my door, never stops by just to say hello, not that I’m hurt or anything.

The mood of the meal was a little bit tense as first year students frothed at the bit to ask Steve questions about issues concerning their everyday realities, such as the disappearance of friends, any upcoming curricular changes, or any sort of hint as to the college’s future. I had the fortunate opportunity of getting to actually eat food two people away from Steve. Yes community, Steve Lawry eats. In fact it can be noted he likes beans, mixed with peas if anyone wants to cook him a meal to get in his good graces. I got to know him a little better as we chatted about his background, and he very diplomatically asked us about ours. Turns out Steve-o received his doctorate from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, where he enjoyed the “lively, open and diverse (campus) with much choice in terms of outlets for expression.�? Second year transfer student Erin Cizeski inquired as to the difference in campus culture between such a big school as U.W., and a little Liberal Arts institution such as Antioch and Steve remarked “Everyone should be open and welcome, Sexuality is a choice, no group should dominate. Straight culture dominates, but a campus should be open. There is less conflict in a big school, everything can be taken in its embrace. At Antioch it is intensified, people feel strongly and want to challenge others, to make them uncomfortable. We need to challenge and question what is an appropriate level of discomfort; none of us have all the answers.�? This statement would be contradicted later on in Steve’s formal Q & A forum, as he was often heard making empirical “I�? statements in regard to his opinions on drug use and “radical identity politics�? I have compiled the following list of Steve’s responses to student’s questions about the recent expulsion spree, and the subject of identity politics:

“I can’t speak to the issue�? (*note to future students who plan on attending these forums; he will not speak to this issue, continuously asking the same questions with fancier wording will not fool him.)

On the subject of the well being of the expulsees:

“I have larger responsibilities to the overall campus climate. Drugs are corrosive, Marijuana deadens peoples minds�? or how about :

“I am the President. I am responsible for the intellectual experience. Drug use is corrosive in my opinion, that’s the way it is.�?

Steve spoke to a room of Antioch students of his vision of an idyllic Antioch student- “ An Antioch student walks a different path, asks tough and difficult questions, lives a meaningful life not a consumerist or nihilistic one. They want to contribute to the betterment of society.�? As long as they don’t smoke pot, or make people uncomfortable with wild displays of deviant sexuality and identity politics, which was the sentiment I got from the comment; “Sometimes I feel there are Antioch students out there who should be here, but are intimidated by drugs, or the insistent argumentative stridency (of the student population) sends people off.�?

Transfer student Preston Krafft had to say of the event “ I don’t think he communicated effectively what he wanted to about the drug policy, and the core programs. I felt what he had to say was reasonable, he just didn’t articulate it in a way a younger generation would understand. He used his stature as president as a way of garnering the final say on the topics questioned. Saying “this is the way it’s going to be, and I back this up because I am the president�? would make perfect sense to someone of the baby boomer generation, but for the student population that’s a major turn off. He should have tried a more humble approach by asking for our cooperation, not demanding it.�?

I apologize if this article doesn’t speak much to the actual content of the question and answer period of Monday’s forum, but unfortunately I don’t feel there is much to speak to. There was a lot of emotion in the room, people feeling like they had been wronged and wanting to have their voice heard to which there was a lot of very defensive responses from Mr. Lawry. He made it clear that his responsibility is to the college’s financial future, giving the sense that the 3rd and 4th year students are disposable and being shepherded out, where as our class is a kind of testing ground for policy and curricular change to benefit the next wave of Steve’s utopic versions of nonoffensive, drug free Antiochians.

I do feel like this luncheon was a good start to bridging the gap spoken about during the meeting between the students and the administration. The general feeling on campus is that Mr. Lawry isn’t very receptive to student voices, so I send out this plea to you community: If you have an opinion on the current state of affairs, go to Steve. He made it very clear at the end of the meeting, that we were all welcome. He urges us to stop by his office and make an appointment with Nancy Wilburn. In fact he can be quoted as saying “Everyone is welcome, and I’m always happy to meet with students.�? I feel it is out civic duty to participate in the wonder that is shared governance, and if you have a problem or concern call up Nancy Wilburn, let her know Steve sent you, and schedule a meeting. Steve made us an offer, let’s hold him to it.

“Hip Hop: The Antioch Influence�?

My name is Charles Arthur Williams. First things first, I’d like to thank the students of Antioch for the unconditional support given to me personally and for the respect, acceptance, and embrace to all walks of race, culture, and creed. I’d also like to thank Luke for asking me to write this article.

As most of us are well aware, the magnetic essence of Erykah Badu, one magnificent singer expressing every ounce of her manifestation of soul, performed at the golf course of Antioch College. Now, a lot of students have seen me practice my B-Boy skills around the campus. It started in the Common Room of Fess (Fesbop). Jennifer Parnel would often practice with me. She surprised me because she could do stuff I couldn’t do and do it well. What else surprised me was I didn’t expect anyone to consider break dancing at Antioch. I mean really, I just didn’t expect it. Years went by, Katie Andrews would film my progress. Not too long after that dance battles intrigued me, taking me to places such as Atlanta Georgia, Washington D.C., Portland Oregon, Seattle Washington, Dayton Ohio, and many other places. OK, what does this have to do with Erykah Badu? Well, that same night when she performed, I was blessed to grace the same stage alongside her. And I was able to present my B-Boy display in front of my people at Antioch College, where it all began. Big ups to School For the Def and Universal Spectrum. For those that don’t know, Universal Spectrum was and still is crew, a crew I use to do hip-hop shows with. School For the Def was a crew that did hip-hop shows such as the hiphop convergence, and mad shows in general. See, Antioch students have in a way, pushed me to continue my way of expressing hip-hop culture. Its been a blessing to have the likes of Jen, David Eagle, and now Tony, as well as a physical workout.

My point is now this. Sept. 9, 2006, those same students that give nothing but a loving hand to me were able to witness hip-hop in its truest and most humble, yet explosive form. Visions of the faces I knew, which were a lot mind you, helped to enable me to live hip-hop on stage next to Erykah Badu. Antioch students are an influence on hip-hop culture because they are an influence to me – and I am hip-hop! I am hip-hop because hip-hop is a culture that influences people to search themselves, test themselves, and find themselves. Hip-hop is education outside education grades K-12. Hip-hop is a study; it’s a particular path of life you walk on if it’s meant for you to walk on. Hip-hop is generations old. And, it needs to be respected. Hip-hop has been performed inside of Antioch, has been known to many graduates from Antioch, and has been extended from the birthplace in South Bronx to the little village university called Antioch College.

-Chuck

The Past 50 Years of the Antioch Presidency, Part II (1985-1997)

By Marissa Geiger

[The first part of this articles was published last issue (Vol59/Issue18)-BS.]

The Man in White Came in Riding on a Horse

After a presidential search, the BOT chose Alan Guskin to replace William Birenbaum. Guskin’s presidency spanned from 1985 to 1997 and I split them up into two very distinctive periods: 1985-1990 were the calm years and 1990-1997 was when things started to get severely problematic. According to Guskin, when he arrived here, AC was an estimated 12 months from closing. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, in the first two years Guskin was here, in order to reverse a downward spiral, he had to fire some people, begin phasing out the Law School in D.C. and balance a budget some $800,000 in the red.

While Birenbaum named the University, Guskin sustained it at a very high level of prosperity for most of his tenure as an administrator. It is not until the period of 1990-1997 that you can see why he may be so controversial. Things started going sour when the Record investigated an administrator whom Guskin appointed without approval of any pre-established legitimate processes (AdCil various committees of the time). Michael Bassis was unilaterally hired in 1989, and just happened to be one of Guskin’s old University of Wisconsin colleagues (where he held a position previous to Antioch) and also created a position for him, AU Executive Vice President to assist Guskin with the College. This was a developing trend for Guskin, as he appointed many people who shared his interest to high-level authority positions. The Record unearthed that Bassis lied about the concentration of his PhD: it wasn’t in Sociology as he and Guskin adamantly proclaimed time and time again, but in Education. This raised serious questions about his qualifications for the job and honesty relating to his academic record. But Guskin shot back, “Mike Bassis will be here as long as I am”.

The Snowball Effect

The problems snowballed. That little lie set the stage for the rest of Guskin’s tenure. Guskin had been rearranging positions and departments since he got to campus, but nothing was as epochal as the restructuring of 1992, which stretched until 1994. This was often referred to as “decentralization”, or Guskin implementing his “federal model”, in which there was is autonomy but within a negotiated policy framework. According to Devine, who was also the Dean of Faculty a short while during Guskin’s tenure, “The federal model allowed the College its autonomy to have the governance that we have, to have the program that we have and provided the safe harbor to say ‘We had a bad year’ and we had some subsidies to help cover what we’re doing.”

The subsidies Devine mentioned refer to the other units of AC. It was at this time the position of AU Chancellor was created, to link all the other executive directors (i.e. presidents) of the other campuses. This decentralization was said to promise the reduction of the responsibility and workload of the central administration. It was at this time there were only five units under the AU (six if you count the AU administration as a separate entity): Antioch College, McGregor School, Seattle, Southern California, and New England (last four are adult campuses).

Instead of AC pumping money into the adult campuses, Guskin reversed the flow of resources and they turned into, in effect, the College’s endowment. Money flowed toward the AC from all the centers it birthed years ago. It usually added up to about $1 million from each center (this number fluxes depending on the source). Devine added, “Guskin was good at working a board. That’s what a CEO of a non-profit has to do. Love him or hate him, he did rebuild the finances of the place.”

Under Guskin’s model, the affected offices were Personnel, Business, Financial Aid, the University Registrar, and (at the time) possibly the 1993 equivalent of Tech Resources. The campus was assured that the consolidation of these departments would save money.

Administration for each unit would be central, but would report to the BOT through the Chancellor of the University, which made the relationship between campus administration and the Board a little more ambiguous. Denman calls Guskin as a loving parent and all the units his children, “Guskin fell into the trap of getting too close in his sense of identity to the College and its future so when he began to receive criticism after the romantic period was over (1985-1990), he withdrew periodically, began to see faculty and students as aliens. At times he tried. When it didn’t pay off for him, it was a reason for anger, and he would move back into the authoritative role. He loved Yellow Springs; his love affair was too great; love in the romantic sense. Love of one who could maintain own independence, and offer independence of College to itself. Its like the love of a parent and letting the child become an independent person that bewilders, disappoints but also achieves its own visions.”

The Crowfoot Dismissal

Guskin took the chance to become Chancellor of AU, thereby ending his dual presidency. After a presidential search (which also caused an uproar in the way it was conducted), Jim Crowfoot was chosen as the 18th President of AC. He only lasted one year (1995-1996). This particular year in our history is the reason the AIF was born and part of why some alumni feel so severed from the AC community.

The Crowfoot controversy is a complicated one and depending on who your sources are, can be entirely hearsay. According to a faculty compiled chronology of events, a new College budget came out on July 1st, accompanied with restrictions on the budget. Crowfoot left for planned vacation on the 22nd. The 23rd, the University imposed a freeze on spending and College could not authorize any spending. A memo given to faculty read Severe disciplinary action if procedures are not followed. Crowfoot was contacted and said a freeze may be helpful and that it is essential to cooperate.

On August 6th, Crowfoot flew home to attend an AdCil budget meeting and found that $600,000-800,000 deficit is why the University took over. It was announced the 13th that Crowfoot “resigned”. Guskin replied with “Sometimes you have to act.” Now, I have heard from some that Crowfoot was a terrible President and the campus culture didn’t mesh well with him.

Denman said “These climatic events, turning points… In the minds of some of us, we felt these were moments where it was established, or should’ve been established, that certain kinds of processes are legitimate here and other processes are not. It stands as a precedent that the University can’t get rid of a College President without consultation, without real involvement of the AC process for hiring and firing. It all goes back to the notion that we make decisions collaboratively at the College. We have normative processes that we should follow for making decisions.”

The dismissal of Crowfoot, was out of line with the College practice of due process, up until that point, that is. There was a flood of articles posted in every newspaper in 25-mile radius, and one thing resounded, the actions of the Executive Committee of the BOT were necessary and the stability at the top of the College hierarchy was the key consideration. Less than a week later one of the Board members, Malte von Matthiessen resigned, citing a lack of confidence in the leadership of AU Chancellor Al Guskin. Malte’s concern lay in the fact that Crowfoot wasn’t given the resources or the support to deal with the College’s problems and was not informed as to how severe they really were. It was doomed from the start merely from miscommunication.

Do you need clarification at this point?

From 1972-2002, the College had 16 different leaders. In the first ten years, 1972-82, enrollment dropped from 2,470 to around five or six hundred, where it has remained. I asked Bob Devine his what he thought of the stagnate admissions rate in the past 20 years and he replied, “You gotta meet 100% of financial need to compete. We need consistent financial aid and more people on the road promoting Antioch College.” Money is always the issue with this question. When we spike the money to be able to bring people here, we spike in admissions. There is a direct correlation between the two. All distractions aside, I set out to determine the root cause in our current crisis, and I believe it lies within the Dixon Network. Superfluous educational imperialism of the early days of the University set the precedent. But I should probably describe what I mean by the “current crisis”. Not really knowing who is really in charge compounds the effects of living within, as Devine calls it, a manufactured crisis. The Board made the decision to charge depreciation to the College’s budget (and every other unit) two years ago. “Depreciation is the $1 million worth of physical plant and it’s going to wear out in 10 years so you must show expenses of $100,000 each year. It originally showed up on AU’s budget (started in 1993, since it was required to have it)- depreciation as an expense, and endowment growth and revenue and they wash each other out.” Numerous consultants advised AU financial executives not to charge each unit for depreciation, claiming the College can’t take the hit.

It is a good strategy, since the money can be used to revitalizing dorms, inadvertently addressing issues of retention. However, it is taking a huge chunk out of the school’s budget for depreciation. At the same time that it was a shock there was no reserve funds set aside to counteract dilapidated conditions of the grounds, $1.8 million dollars was also wrenched from the College’s pockets at the same time when all the other units decide to stop paying the overhead they have been sending our way for years. Instead, the subsidies are called (money from adult campuses, because remember, they were thought to be our endowment) “allowable deficit”, meaning they will go away sooner or later if we get our finances in order. Glenn Watt’s attitude and the rest of the University is destructive, as both think it is time for all other satellites to concentrate on themselves, to better themselves with all their revenue, instead of pumping money into a black hole of a college. Devine responds, “The College is a black hole cause we don’t know what people do, and we don’t necessarily share the values.” But the University seems to forget that the College is a vital part of AU. The central administration is located here and without some of the resources we have (library, cafeteria, etc.), the other schools could not be accredited.

Adult campuses are the most important source of revenue for the University. Not only do they bring in more money, but the other branches of the University are growing amazingly fast, in comparison to the College, which is currently struggling to maintain its existing attendance figures, as it waxes and wanes like it always does, or has for 20 years. A liberal arts model of education is expensive and there are two ways of remedying it: large endowments, which we don’t have, and/or high enrollment rate, which we don’t have.

Again, the structure is questioned

“But when the autonomy goes away [supplied under Guskin’s federal model] and the subsidies go away then I question whether the College does not need its own BOT, its own structure.” which is Devine’s response to how he feels about the current AU/AC dichotomy. AU administration is putting us in a very difficult situation, as all our money is tied up in projects that should have happened a long time ago. It is really easy to fall into the trap of not seeing the end in sight when it comes to campus projects, since we have adopted the “band-aid fix” for many years now. I asked Denman for his opinion on AC/AU and he said, “I have been convinced that it would be good for the College to regain its independence, but I have concluded in the last four months that this is an impossibility, that the AIF was the last good try, that now the future of the College lies within the University and that we better do everything we possibly can to have the entire University system thrive with the College as a part of it. The trustees will never really entertain the question, let alone answer it favorably.” (In a Record from 1993, it said the Board will no longer entertain questions about whether the University should exist or not.)

I asked Pelakoudas the same question and he mentioned that other places had Board of Visitors and depending on how the BOT defines the BOV, they can be delegated whatever powers the want. He suggested, “Total abolishment of current hierarchy. The University is a holding company with five separately incorporated units. It’s a business model. It doesn’t produce anything. Make the University a non-operating unit, contrary to what we have across the street. The superstructure can exist, but while not running programs. Each unit can make decisions about assets and leadership as long as they are consistent with the holding company (AU) and the BOT. As long as AU owns the resources we cannot be successful. We must manage our own resources to be successful, if we have any chance. (And here is where Al and Connie agree) It may be that we are beyond the stage where anything will work. I hope not… but I don’t think we can work under the present structure.”

I ran into an article in a Record from 1985 titled Is the University good for the College? Professor of Co-operative Education Dan Hotaling responds with, “Accountability and sense of responsibility are so spread around that no one can get a handle on how to run the place. No one is in a position to make a significant difference. No one can truly lead here since advocacy for this campus clashes with subservience to the University’s administration. Who is in charge of AC and what can s/he really do?” I want to challenge and prove Guskin wrong when he says, “It is an academic truism that trying to change a University is like trying to rearrange a cemetery.” It doesn’t sound like Connie’s suggestion would be that painful.

Reports of linkage problems

Even if our ideas are not heard or just completely ignored, the current system should not go to waste or make us go to waste. We have a communication problem with the University and it is to our benefit to remedy it. I read in the NCA report from the last time the accreditation team was here in 1993. A serious fault they see within our system is the problem of linkage, connecting different departments, especially between AC and across the street. Duffy explained to me that, for a long time, Glenn Watts didn’t know the air condition was broken in the library. He told Duffy that no one had told him, to which replied to me during the interview, “Kettering Building might as well be in Mexico.” Although, I do know information slips through the cracks over there and irresponsibility cannot be blamed on workload. If that is the argument, a review is in order of the consolidations that occurred more than a decade ago. So…what?

This summer, I was blaming Joan, and then I convinced others and myself that it was the BOT. Recently, I think that it is we as a community. Richard Lapides, a trustee of nine years, resigned June 8th, 1995. He was interviewed in the Record and he had this to say about the “blame game”, “Sometimes people like to talk overmuch about leadership because it’s a way to avoid dealing with them. It’s a lot easier to hold a leader responsible for what’s good or bad, more often what’s bad, instead of looking to oneself and one’s own role. It’s ridiculous. It happens all the time. It’s human nature.” I don’t fully agree with that statement, but I do think he makes a valid point by singling community members out and telling them to take responsibility for their surroundings. Times have changed since 1995, and I wonder if any Trustees would agree with his statement while still recognizing how many times students voices and efforts have been quashed on this campus.

Which leads me to four criteria I found in a commentary I found in the Record by student Matthew Rick. 1) The people who control the money call all the shots. 2) Important decisions are made from the top down. 3) The people in control don’t have to apologize. 4) Protest is tolerated as long as it doesn’t change anything.

These were written in 1992 and I remember discussing these same issues in the days following Joan’s meeting with us. We protested about DOS restructuring and the blatant weakening of the Office of Multicultural Affairs. If you have noticed other parallels through out this report to what is going on now, do not be surprised. It all goes back to the Guskin era, at the start of his difficult years. Notice that Guskin created a position specifically for Bassis. We ran into that issue this past summer with how obvious some of the positions were designed and written. Some purposely excluded while others were inclusive. It was as if some of the positions were being molded around individuals. Also notice in Guskin’s decentralization/federal model how there was decentralization of less centralized power in one area (AHEM DOS) and this command came from above, namely the BOT, but implemented by President <enter name here>. The College Community has yet to see the Restructuring Committee notes that were compiled at numerous social settings and via email. Again, whom are we supposed to go to for it? I gather there is some hesitancy from up above Joan to release them, or she would have put them out by now. Or maybe not. The students don’t have the money to be able to call the shots, but we certainly have every other constituency beat by majority. And without us, there is no reason for the College to continue operating. “If you don’t feel influential over your environment, then you loose the will to change.”

There are interesting parallels between the past and present. McGregor School merged with AU in 1995. Of course there was a lot of discussion on taking on such collaboration. At the same time, the Yellow Springs campus dwellers were in an uproar about the College renting out Units to McGregor. And here we are, in 2003, McGregor is threatening to leave, and we are negotiating with them to rent out Units (or maybe it was quashed by Housing). It was also the same time as racism/systematic oppression were active issues on campus. You would think the administration would have it down by now, right? We are moving in circles around a circle. It seems as if we keep asking the same questions over and over again, and they are the wrong ones every time because we don’t get the right answers. The question “Is AU good for AC” is becoming tedious and gets us nowhere close to achieving some sort of independence within the College.

We have been operating in the same cursed structure for 20-odd years. The fear that I mentioned before plays an important role in keeping us in this static position. Pelakoudas states, “An environment in which you feel squeezed by limited resources and constant economic constraints makes dealing with the other issues difficult (those of race, class, gender, etc.) It makes people angry and scared. It comes down to ownership of resources and the quality of life campus. If you don’t feel influential over your environment, then you loose the will to change, and not just financial, governance side. It is also the ownership of assets, issues surrounding governance. If you really feel that [influence] working with colleagues, you can make a difference. If you don’t have that possibility, what is the point?”

I personally, do not feel like I am, or have been, influencing my environment. The resistance against that this summer was suffocating and culminated at one particular community meeting where two executive administrators began to tear up. THEY WERE ACTUALLY LISTENING FOR ONCE. And its not like they had a choice. There is no room for power hungry individuals in administration. Guskin is a member of the Renewal Commission. Check out and click on “Project on the Future of Higher Education”. Notice who is on it: Guskin, BASSIS, and a few other of his friends he appointed to administrative positions while President/Chancellor.

Should this scare you that he is once again a part of a crucial decision making process? I will leave that for you to decide. I am not placing blame on any one individual for all our current woes. However, it seems odd to me that we are tackling issues that have root in the Guskin era, and he is on the Commission. People say the Commission and its members have the best interest of the College in mind. But what they mean is the members have their own interest for the College in mind and in turn, come to the table wielding their own agenda.

I am not a proponent of this, it is merely an observation- I already pointed out that we, as students, have the majority, population wise. Students in 1973 took advantage of that and look at the damage they did. We are still recovering from it. I say we escape this perpetual victim mentality that comes along with living in an environment where we have no control. We are at another crucial bend in our cycle, where we could possibly break off. The Renewal Commission, restructuring of the DOS, presidential search- its all happened before, and all at the same time and Antioch College reacted the way we always do, with fear and trembling submission. I am going to take Duffy’s advice and “adopt” a trustee, alumni, or a member on a commission and open my heart to them totally so I can feed them so they can make the judgments by they know from me. I cannot accept “Nothing will ever change here”, because the means lie within all of us.